Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree28Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 29th, 2015, 12:50 PM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Again, from the ruling:

"The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering. In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'"
Thanks from LongWinded
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 12:51 PM   #12
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,773
In Ohio, they will acquire enough signatures to have the issue of a non-partisan re-districting commission on the Nov. 2016 ballot. We have more registered Democrats than Republicans and the ballot will appear in a Presidential election year. Care to venture how that vote will turn out ? Point being, there's nothing narrow about that ruling. This has ban a banner SC summer for the Left.
Thanks from waitingtables
Camelot is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 01:04 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
It does not change the fact that this is a narrow ruling.

Interesting how the left thinks that a clear provision in the Constitution can be amended by judicial fiat.



There was only one meaning of Legislature, that was the body elected to serve as the state legislature. Now we have 5 Justices amending that clear meaning. A further blow to the rule of law.

BTW..... The commission has been as much involved in playing politics with redistricting as any state legislature has been, that was the finding of a three judge panel* (not part of this case however - but referenced in the Roberts dissent). So there is no sanctity in a panel deciding redistricting.

*See: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (Ariz. 2014)

What it doesn't change is you have no legal recourse, and the states will comply with any decisions made by independent panels to redraw any districts they deem necessary, and no state legislatures or governors can do anything about it.
Thanks from waitingtables and LongWinded
skews13 is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 01:09 PM   #14
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
What it doesn't change is you have no legal recourse, and the states will comply with any decisions made by independent panels to redraw any districts they deem necessary, and no state legislatures or governors can do anything about it.
That's true to a degree as long as the people in each state pass a referendum to compel a commission. The ruling does not mean that each state must switch to a commission without the explicit consent of the electorate. Arizona voters voted for such a commission. It was important for Republicans to fight it because they know what the outcome will be if districts are drawn fairly.
Thanks from waitingtables
Camelot is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 01:20 PM   #15
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
What it doesn't change is you have no legal recourse, and the states will comply with any decisions made by independent panels to redraw any districts they deem necessary, and no state legislatures or governors can do anything about it.

You presume states will set-up such panels, or is this another of your predictions?

And states will fight the loss of a clearly defined Constitutional mandate that Legislatures have the power as outlined at Article I. In fact Congress can restore the matter to where it is Constitutionally mandated with legislation, as also outlined in Article I.

But that you believe a decision that overrides a clear Constitutional mandate is something to celebrate is not surprising. But these commissions will not be what you think they will become regardless.


excalibur is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 01:22 PM   #16
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Clearly this is far from settled.

Quote:
Art. I, §4, cl. 1
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
There was only one meaning of Legislature, that was the body elected to serve as the state legislature. Now we have 5 Justices amending that clear meaning. A further blow to the rule of law.

BTW..... The commission has been as much involved in playing politics with redistricting as any state legislature has been, that was the finding of a three judge panel* (not part of this case however - but referenced in the Roberts dissent). So there is no sanctity in a panel deciding redistricting.

*See: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (Ariz. 2014)


excalibur is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 02:01 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Supreme Court upholds Arizona's independent redistricting commission, dealing blow to Republicans



Advocates for redistricting reform scored a crucial victory today when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission. Passed by the voters in 2000, in an effort to remove legislators' bias from the redistricting process, the commission was imperiled by the GOP's rabid desire to abolish it so that they could gerrymander the state's congressional districts to give themselves a partisan advantage.

This case has broad implications for other electoral reform efforts in several other states. As with Arizona, California has its own independent redistricting commission that would have almost assuredly been found unconstitutional had the plaintiffs prevailed. Similarly, Florida voters passed anti-gerrymandering rules in 2010 (the legislature's redistricting plan is subject to ongoing litigation in state court), and redistricting measures have appeared on the ballot in other states like Ohio.

At issue in this case was the meaning of the Article One constitutional clause governing the rules regarding congressional elections, which states the following:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Republican state legislators contended that the word "legislature" means the literal representative legislature, which would preclude the voters themselves from directly instituting rules that would determine the electoral rules. Legal scholars are divided over the issue, but some of them gave very compelling reasons to agree with the defendants.

They argue that the concept of the legislature also encompasses the electorate itself, saying the term does not refer to a specific representative body but rather to those who are empowered to make laws. In a state that permits citizens to put forth ballot initiative like Arizona, this means the voters themselves, and the Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation.

Looking to the future, the initiative process provides activists with one of the most potent tools they have to fight gerrymandering. Republican-drawn states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Utah are all ripe targets for potential redistricting reform campaigns if only activists can organize and raise enough funds to compete. Reform initiatives are overwhelmingly popular when proponents have enough funds to wage a competitive campaign, as evidenced by the broad margins by which such measures passed in Arizona, California, and Florida.

While this case only concerns Congress and only immediately impacts Arizona, a ruling for the plaintiffs would have had explosive implications for ballot initiatives and direct democracy. More frighteningly, taken to its logical extreme, such a ruling may have even removed the ability of governors to veto redistricting legislation, since governors are not literally a part of the legislature.

That would have destroyed Democrats' ability to block future GOP gerrymandering because it is far easier to win gubernatorial elections in states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin than it is to capture their already gerrymandered legislatures (whose district lines were drawn by Republicans, of course).

Had the ruling gone the other way, it might have kept Democrats out of the House for a very long time, which underscores just how big of a victory this is for reform advocates. It is now up to activists to organize new ballot measures in more states to combat the current gross distortion of gerrymandering.

This is surprising and yet encouraging as well. This takes a HUGE chunk out of the power of Citizens United.
LongWinded is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 08:32 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Yes, and we know why the right hates it so. It prevents them from effectively holding on to a majority they only way that they can, with such changing demographics. I like this quote from Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the majority decision:
I am pretty sure anyone who understands the Constitution would be angry that they have just learned that word "legislature" does not mean "legislature" in Article I, Section 4:

Quote:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 08:35 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Again, from the ruling:

"The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering. In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'"
And that is judicial activism at its finest: The "core principle of the republican government" is a written Constitution and the rule of law, and that means that when the Constitution uses the word "legislature" it means "legislature."
Jimmyb is offline  
Old June 29th, 2015, 08:42 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
I think that jimmybser's absence today may be a result of his head exploding from all that has happened these last dozen days lol
I am enjoying reading those who live in a bubble.

From the ruling:

Quote:
Held:

The Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit. In claiming that Proposition 106 stripped it of its alleged constitutional prerogative to engage in redistricting and that its injury would be remedied by a court order enjoining the proposition’s enforcement, the Legislature has shown injury that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent,’ ” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 64, “fairly traceable to the challenged action,” and “redressable by a favorable ruling,” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. ___, ___. Specifically, Proposition 106, together with the Arizona Constitution’s ban on efforts by the Arizona Legislature to undermine the purposes of an initiative, would “completely nullif[y]” any vote by the Legislature, now or “in the future,” purporting to adopt are districting plan. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 823–824. Pp. 9–15.
Does Texas v. The United States regarding Obama's immigration amnesty program and standing ring a bell? Also the Fifth Circuit's panel was picked to hear an appeal by Obama regarding Hanson's merit ruling, and two of the three were on the panel that denied a stay to Hanson's injunction.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
gerrymandering, gop, major, victory



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lil' Eddie Gillespie; FOR (His) Racial-Gerrymandering.... Medicine Man Current Events 1 October 14th, 2014 10:27 AM
Major Court Victory in North Carolina excalibur Current Events 1 April 10th, 2014 11:01 AM
Major Victory For Obama As House GOP Introduce 3 Bills Improving Obamacare skews13 Current Events 34 March 14th, 2014 05:01 PM
Bush signs terror bill in major victory for White House CNN Current Events 7 October 22nd, 2006 11:12 AM
Major Marijuana Victory! hevusa Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco 7 December 24th, 2005 12:53 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.